PENAL CODE CITATIONS: SENTENCING IN 18 AMERICAN
FELONY COURTS, 1983
(ICPSR 8396)
Principal Investigator
Mark A. Cunniff
National Association of Criminal Justice Planners
Third ICPSR Edition
March 1997
Inter-university Consortium for
Political and Social Research
P.O. Box 1248
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106
-
BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION
Publications based on ICPSR data collections should
acknowledge those sources by means of bibliographic
citations. To ensure that such source attributions are
captured for social science bibliographic utilities,
citations must appear in footnotes or in the reference
section of publications. The bibliographic citation for
this data collection is:
Cunniff, Mark A. PENAL CODE CITATIONS:
SENTENCING IN 18 AMERICAN FELONY COURTS, 1983
[Computer file]. Conducted by the National
Association of Criminal Justice Planners. 3rd
ICPSR ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university
Consortium for Political and Social Research
[producer and distributor], 1997.
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ON USE OF ICPSR RESOURCES
To provide funding agencies with essential information
about use of archival resources and to facilitate the
exchange of information about ICPSR participants'
research activities, users of ICPSR data are requested to
send to ICPSR bibliographic citations for each completed
manuscript or thesis abstract. Please indicate in a cover
letter which data were used.
DATA DISCLAIMER
The original collector of the data, ICPSR, and the
relevant funding agency bear no responsibility for uses
of this collection or for interpretations or inferences
based upon such uses.
1
-
-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
0
PAGE
NO.
-
INTRODUCTION
0
STUDY DESCRIPTION I
0
METHODOLOGY I
0
SITE SELECTION I
0
DATA COLLECTION I
0
DATA COMPARABILITY III
0
SAMPLING III
0
CODEBOOK INFORMATION IV
0
ICPSR PROCESSING INFORMATION VI
0
VARIABLE DESCRIPTION LIST VII
0
CODEBOOK 1
0
APPENDIX A 12
1
I
0
INTRODUCTION
0
STUDY DESCRIPTION
0
PENAL CODE CITATIONS: SENTENCING IN 18 AMERICAN FELONY
COURTS, 1983 FOCUSES ON SENTENCES IMPOSED IN COURTS OF
GENERAL JURISDICTION FOR SELECTED FELONY CRIMES. THE CRIMES
SELECTED WERE HOMICIDE, RAPE, ROBBERY, AGGRAVATED ASSAULT,
BURGLARY, THEFT, AND DRUG TRAFFICKING. THE COLLECTION OF
THESE DATA WAS SPONSORED BY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS UNDER GRANT NUMBER
82-BJ-CX-K086. THE STUDY DEALT WITH DEFENDANTS WHO WERE
SENTENCED IN THE CALENDAR YEAR 1983.
-
METHODOLOGY
0
SITE SELECTION
THIS DATA COLLECTION INCLUDES INFORMATION FROM EIGHTEEN
(18) COUNTY BASED JURISDICTIONS, OR THE COURT OF ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION SERVING A PARTICULAR COUNTY. THE COUNTIES
SELECTED FOR THIS STUDY WERE LARGE IN POPULATION SIZE WITH
AN AVERAGE POPULATION OF 886,600 PERSONS AND WERE URBAN
ORIENTED, EITHER CONTAINING A MAJOR URBAN AREA WITHIN THEIR
BOUNDARIES OR NEIGHBORED A MAJOR METROPOLITAN AREA. THESE
LARGE JURISDICTIONS WERE SELECTED BECAUSE THEY COULD
GENERATE A SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF CASES FOR ANALYSIS.
0
DATA COLLECTION
DATA FOR THIS STUDY ORIGINATED FROM A VARIETY OF SOURCES.
TABLE 1 PROVIDES A LISTING FOR THE PARTICIPATING
JURISDICTIONS, THEIR POPULATION FIGURES, AS WELL AS
INFORMATION ON THE RECORD SOURCE FOR THE SENTENCING DATA.
1
II
0
TABLE 1
LISTING OF JURISDICTIONS THAT PARTICIPATED IN THE STUDY
AND THE RECORD SOURCE FOR THE DATA
0
JURISDICTION STATE POPULATION DATA SOURCE
------------- ----- ---------- -----------
BALTIMORE MARYLAND 786,775 COURT RECORDS
CITY
BALTIMORE MARYLAND 655,615 BALTIMORE
COUNTY COUNTY CJIS*
DADE COUNTY FLORIDA 1,625,781 DADE COUNTY
CJIS
DAVIDSON COUNTY TENNESSEE 455,651 COURT RECORDS
DENVER COLORADO 492,365 COURT RECORDS
HENNEPIN COUNTY MINNESOTA 941,411 DEPARTMENT OF
COURT SERVICES
JEFFERSON COUNTY KENTUCKY 685,004 PROSECUTOR
AND COURT
RECORDS
JEFFERSON PARISH LOUISIANA 454,592 PROSECUTOR
AND COURT
RECORDS
KANE COUNTY ILLINOIS 278,405 COURT RECORDS
LANCASTER COUNTY NEBRASKA 192,884 COURT RECORDS
LOS ANGELES CO.** CALIFORNIA 2,966,850 PROSECUTOR
AND COURT
RECORDS
LUCAS COUNTY OHIO 471,741 COURT RECORDS
MARICOPA COUNTY ARIZONA 1,509,052 MARICOPA
COUNTY CJIS*
MILWAUKEE COUNTY WISCONSIN 964,988 PROSECUTOR
RECORDS
NEW ORLEANS LOUISIANA 577,515 COURT RECORDS
PHILADELPHIA PENNSYLVANIA 1,688,210 COURT RECORDS
OKLAHOMA COUNTY OKLAHOMA 568,933 CJIS AND
PROSECUTOR
RECORDS
RIVERSIDE COUNTY CALIFORNIA 663,166 PROSECUTOR
RECORDS
AVERAGE POPULATION = 886,600
*CJIS = CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM
**LOS ANGELES CO.: COVERS ONLY THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF LOS
ANGELES COUNTY. SEE METHODOLOGICAL NOTES IN APPENDIX A
(GEOGRAPHICAL COVERAGE).
1
III
ALTHOUGH COURT RECORDS WERE USED IN THE MAJORITY OF THE
JURISTICTIONS, IN A NUMBER OF INSTANCES PROSECUTORIAL OR
CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEMS DATA WERE USED EITHER
AS THE SOLE SOURCE OF DATA OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH OTHER
RECORDS. IN MOST CASES MANUAL DATA COLLECTION WAS PERFORMED
FROM ORIGINAL COURT RECORDS OR FROM COMPUTERIZED PRINTOUTS
PROVIDED BY THE COURT OR PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE.
CASE INFORMATION WAS COLLECTED ACCORDING TO DEFENDANT.
IN INSTANCES WHERE MULTIPLE CHARGE CONVICTIONS OCCURRED
AGAINST ONE INDIVIDUAL, ONLY ONE CASE WAS RECORD GENERATED.
IN INSTANCES WHERE MULTIPLE DEFENDANTS WERE INVOLVED IN A
CASE, A SEPARATE RECORD WAS MADE ON EACH CONVICTED
DEFENDANT.
-
DATA COMPARABILITY
DESPITE THE VARIETY IN DATA SOURCES AND DATA COLLECTION
METHODS, THE DATA REMAIN COMPARABLE ACROSS JURISDICTIONS
BECAUSE ALL THE DATA FLOWED FROM A COMMON SET OF DECISION
RULES IN ITS COLLECTION. IN ADDITION TO PROVIDING DATA ONLY
ON THOSE PENAL CODE CITATIONS SPECIFIED BY THE PROJECT, EACH
JURISDICTION WAS INSTRUCTED TO USE THE FOLLOWING HIERARCHY
IN SORTING THROUGH CASES INVOLVING MULTIPLE CHARGE
CONVICTIONS: HOMICIDE, RAPE, ROBBERY, AGGRAVATED ASSAULT,
BURGLARY, LARCENY, AND DRUG TRAFFICKING. FINALLY, EACH
JURISDICTION EXAMINED THE CHARGE ON WHICH THE PERSON WAS
CONVICTED, NOT THE CHARGE ON WHICH THE DEFENDANT WAS
INDICTED.
0
SAMPLING
0
IN MOST INSTANCES THE STUDY RECEIVED A TOTAL ACCOUNTING
OF ALL CASES FALLING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE STUDY. WHERE
TOTAL COUNTS WERE NOT ACHIEVABLE OR WERE VERY LARGE,
SAMPLING WAS USED. THE SAMPLED CASES WERE THEN WEIGHTED SO
AS TO REFLECT THE TOTAL CASELOAD. HOMICIDE, RAPE, AGGRAVATED
ASSAULT REPRESENTED A SMALL PROPORTION OF THE CASES WITH ALL
THREE COMBINED CONSTITUTING ONLY 19% OF ALL THE CASES. WHILE
ROBBERY, LARCENY, AND DRUG TRAFFICKING EACH CAME IN WITH A
SIZEABLE SHARE OF THE WORKLOAD (20%, 20%, AND 14%
RESPECTIVELY), BURGLARY WAS THE MOST PREVALENT CRIME AMONG
THE VARIOUS CRIME TYPES. BETTER THAN ONE OUT OF FOUR FELONY
COURT SENTENCES IN THIS STUDY INVOLVED BURGLARY (28%).
1
IV
A DISTINCTION WAS ALSO MADE BETWEEN CORE INFORMATIONAL
ITEMS AND OPTIONAL ONES. THE CORE ITEMS HAD TO BE PROVIDED
ON EVERY CASE AND THEY INCLUDED: THE HIGHEST CHARGE ON
WHICH SENTENCED; THE TYPE OF SENTENCE IMPOSED; AND THE TERM
TO WHICH EACH PERSON WAS SENTENCED. THE OPTIONAL ITEMS DEALT
WITH CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CRIME, CASE PROCESSING, AND THE
DEFENDANT. THESE INCLUDED: WHETHER OR NOT THE CHARGE ON
WHICH CONVICTED WAS AN ATTEMPTED OR COMPLETED CRIME; THE
NUMBER OF CHARGES CONVICTED OF; WHETHER CONSECUTIVE TERMS
WERE IMPOSED; WHETHER SENTENCING ENHANCEMENTS WERE INVOKED;
WHETHER THE CHARGE ON WHICH CONVICTED WAS LOWER THAN THE ONE
ON WHICH INDICTED; WHETHER PROVISIONS FOR CAREER CRIMINAL
PROSECUTION WERE USED; AND THE AGE OF THE DEFENDANT.
0
CODEBOOK INFORMATION
0
THE EXAMPLE BELOW IS A REPRODUCTION OF INFORMATION
APPEARING IN THE MACHINE-READABLE CODEBOOK FOR A TYPICAL
VARIABLE. THE NUMBERS IN BRACKETS DO NOT APPEAR BUT ARE
REFERENCES TO THE DESCRIPTIONS WHICH FOLLOW THIS EXAMPLE.
............................................................
VAR 011 MAXIMUM/FIXED TERM 3 MD=99999
REF 011 LOC 30 WIDTH 05 DK 01 COL 32
MAXIMUM OR FIXED TERM OF RESPONDENT'S
INCARCERATION
------------------------------------------
7 ALL SENTENCE TERMS HAVE BEEN MULTIPLIED BY 100
SO THAT A SENTENCE OF ONE YEAR APPEARS AS 100 ON
ON THE RECORD.
MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF TIME THE RESPONDENT MUST
SERVE IN EITHER JAIL OR PRISON. TERM SPECIFIED
BY JUDGE IS RECORDED IN YEARS.
8 ACTUAL NUMBER IS CODED.
9 0
88888. JAIL IMPOSED BUT SENTENCE NOT ASCERTAINED
99600. LIFE (WITH POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE)
99700. NATURAL LIFE (NO POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE)
98000. DEATH
99999. NOT APPLICABLE
............................................................
1
V
0
INDICATES THE VARIABLE AND REFERENCE NUMBERS.
A VARIABLE NUMBER AND A REFERENCE NUMBER ARE
ASSIGNED TO EACH VARIABLE IN THE DATA COLLECTION.
IN THE PRESENT CODEBOOK WHICH DOCUMENTS THE
ARCHIVED DATA COLLECTION THESE NUMBERS ARE
IDENTICAL. SHOULD THE DATA BE SUBSETTED OR
REARRANGED BY AN OSIRIS PROGRAM (E.G., MMP TO
INTERSPERSE DATA FROM ANOTHER SOURCE, OR TCOT TO
PRODUCE AN ANALYSIS DECK), THE VARIABLE NUMBERS
WOULD CHANGE TO REFLECT THE ORDER OF THE NEW DATA
COLLECTION, WHILE THE REFERENCE NUMBER WOULD REMAIN
UNCHANGED TO REFLECT THE VARIABLE NUMBER IN THE
CODEBOOK DESCRIBING THE ARCHIVED DATA COLLECTION.
INDICATES THE ABBREVIATED VARIABLE NAME (MAXIMUM
OF 24 CHARACTERS) USED IN THE OSIRIS SYSTEM TO
IDENTIFY THE VARIABLE FOR THE USER. AN EXPANDED
VERSION OF THE VARIABLE NAME CAN BE FOUND IN THE
VARIABLE DESCRIPTION LIST.
3 INDICATES THE CODE VALUES OF MISSING DATA. IN
THIS EXAMPLE, THE CODE VALUE EQUAL TO 99999 IS MISSING
DATA. ALTERNATIVE STATEMENTS FOR OTHER VARIABLES ARE
"MD=0," "MD=9" OR "NO MISSING DATA CODES." SOME
ANALYSIS SOFTWARE PACKAGES (INCLUDING THE OSIRIS
SOFTWARE PACKAGE) REQUIRE THAT CERTAIN TYPES OF DATA
WHICH THE USER DESIRES TO BE EXCLUDED FROM ANALYSIS
BEPDESIGNATED AS "MISSING DATA," E.G., INAPPROPRIATE,
UNASCERTAINED, UNASCERTAINABLE, OR AMBIGUOUS DATA
CATEGORIES. ALTHOUGH THESE CODES ARE DEFINED AS
MISSING DATA CATEGORIES, THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE
USER SHOULD NOT OR CANNOT USE THEM IN A SUBSTANTIVE
ROLE IF SO DESIRED.
INDICATES THE STARTING LOCATION AND WIDTH OF THIS
VARIABLE WHEN THE DATA ARE STORED ON A MAGNETIC TAPE
IN THE OSIRIS FORMAT. IF THE VARIABLE IS OF A
MULTIPLE-RESPONSE TYPE, THE WIDTH REFERENCED IS THAT
OF A SINGLE RESPONSE. IN THIS EXAMPLE THE VARIABLE
NAMED "MAXIMUM/FIXED TERM" IS 05 COLUMN(S) WIDE
AND IS LOCATED IN THE 30TH COLUMN WITHIN THE RECORD.
INDICATES THE LOCATION BY DECK AND COLUMN(S) OF
THIS VARIABLE WHEN THE DATA ARE STORED ON CARDS OR IN
CARD-IMAGE FORMAT (80-COLUMN FORMAT)
1
VI
0
THIS IS THE FULL TEXT (QUESTION) SUPPLIED BY THE
INVESTIGATOR TO DESCRIBE THE VARIABLE. THE QUESTION
TEXT AND THE NUMBERS AND LETTERS THAT MAY APPEAR AT
THE BEGINNING REFLECT THE ORIGINAL WORDING OF THE
QUESTIONNAIRE ITEM.
7 INDICATES AN ADDITIONAL COMMENT OR EXPLANATION
APPENDED TO THE VARIABLE DESCRIPTION.
8 "ACTUAL NUMBER IS CODED" APPEARS IN THE CODEBOOK
TO INDICATE THAT THE VARIABLE HAS BEEN DECLARED
CONTINOUS.
9 INDICATES THE CODE VALUES OCCURRING IN THE DATA FOR
THIS VARIABLE.
0 INDICATES THE TEXTUAL DEFINITIONS OF THE CODES.
ABBREVIATIONS COMMONLY USED IN THE CODE DEFINITIONS
ARE "DK" (DO NOT KNOW), "NA" (NOT ASCERTAINED), AND
"INAP" (INAPPROPRIATE).
-
ICPSR PROCESSING INFORMATION
0
THE DATA COLLECTION WAS PROCESSED ACCORDING TO THE
STANDARD ICPSR PROCESSING PROCEDURES. THERE ARE 19 TOTAL
DATA FILES. THE FIRST 18 CORRESPOND TO THE JURISDICTIONS
INCLUDED IN THIS COLLECTION. THE FINAL FILE IS A
CONCATENATED FILE CONTAINING DATA FROM THE 18 JURISDICTIONS.
THE DATA WERE CHECKED FOR ILLEGAL OR INCONSISTENT CODE
VALUES WHICH, WHEN FOUND, WERE RECODED TO OSIRIS MISSING
DATA VALUES. NO CONSISTENCY CHECKS WERE PERFORMED.
STATEMENTS BRACKETED IN "" SIGNS IN THE BODY OF THE
CODEBOOK WERE ADDED BY THE PROCESSORS FOR EXPLANATORY
PURPOSES.
1
VII
0
VARIABLE DESCRIPTION LIST
0
ICPSR PROCESSING VARIABLES
1 ICPSR STUDY NUMBER-8396
2 ICPSR EDITION NUMBER-3
3 ICPSR PART NUMBER-1
4 ICPSR SEQUENCE NUMBER
0
CASE IDENTIFICATION
5 FELON CASE NUMBER
0
CRIME DESCRIPTION
6 WHAT IS THE HIGHEST CHARGE R SENTENCED
7 WHAT WAS THE COMPLETION LEVEL OF THE CRIME
8 HOW WAS THE CONVICTION OBTAINED
0
SENTENCING DESCRIPTION
9 WHAT WAS THE SENTENCED IMPOSED ON R
10 PROBATION SENTENCE LENGTH FOR R
11 MINIMUM TERM OF INCARCERATION FOR R
12 MAXIMUM/FIXED TERM OF INCARCERATION FOR R
13 WHERE WAS R SENTENCED TO
14 CREDIT FOR PRETRIAL DETENTION FOR R
15 TOTAL NUMBER OF CHARGES R CONVICTED
16 CONSECUTIVE TERMS OF INCARCERATION FOR R
17 SENTENCING ENHANCEMENTS INVOLVED FOR R
18 WAS THIS A CAREER CRIMINAL PROSECUTION PROCEDURE
19 WAS A GUN USED OR PRESENT IN THE CRIME
20 HIGHEST CHARGE R CONVICTED
21 AGE OF R WHEN SENTENCED
22 WEIGHT FACTOR
23 JURISDICTION ID
24 SIMPLIFIED CRIME CODE
1 1
-
DECK IDENTIFICATION NUMBER IS '01' DK 1 COL 1- 2
----------------------------------
0 VAR 0001 ICPSR STUDY NUMBER-8396 NO MISSING DATA CODES
REF 0001 LOC 1 WIDTH 4 DK 1 COL 3- 6
0
ICPSR STUDY NUMBER
------------------
8396. THE ICPSR HAS ATTACHED THIS NUMBER AS A UNIQUE
DATA COLLECTION IDENTIFICATION NUMBER.
0 ...............................................................
0 VAR 0002 ICPSR EDITION NUMBER - 3 NO MISSING DATA CODES
REF 0002 LOC 5 WIDTH 1 DK 1 COL 7
0
ICPSR EDITION NUMBER
--------------------
THE NUMBER IDENTIFYING THE RELEASE EDITION OF THE DATA
COLLECTION.
2. SPRING, 1987 RELEASE
0 ...............................................................
0 VAR 0003 ICPSR PART NUMBER NO MISSING DATA CODES
REF 0003 LOC 6 WIDTH 2 DK 1 COL 8- 9
0
ICPSR PART NUMBER
-----------------
THE NUMBER IDENTIFYING THIS PART OF AN 18-PART DATA
COLLECTION.
NOTE THAT THE PART NUMBER WILL NOT ALWAYS CORRESPOND EXACTLY
TO THE MATCHING JURISDICTION NUMBER, DUE TO THE NUMBERING
SCHEME USED BY THE ORIGINAL PRINCIPLE INVESTIGATOR. ALSO SEE
VAR 22 FOR JURISDICTION IDENTIFICATION CODES.
01. JURISDICTION ONE, BALTIMORE CITY (MD)
02. JURISDICTION TWO, BALTIMORE COUNTY (MD)
03. JURISDICTION FOUR, DADE COUNTY (FL)
1 2
- (CONTINUED)
- 04. JURISDICTION FIVE, DAVIDSON COUNTY (TN)
05. JURISDICTION SIX, DENVER (CO)
06. JURISDICTION SEVEN, HENNEPIN COUNTY (MN)
07. JURISDICTION EIGHT, JEFFERSON COUNTY (KY)
08. JURISDICTION NINE, JEFFERSON PARISH (LA)
09. JURISDICTION TEN, KANE COUNTY (IL)
10. JURISDICTION ELEVEN, LANCASTER COUNTY (NE)
11. JURISDICTION TWELVE, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CENTRAL
DISTRICT (CA)
12. JURISDICTION THIRTEEN, LUCAS COUNTY (OH)
13. JURISDICTION FOURTEEN, MARICOPA COUNTY (AZ)
14. JURISDICTION FIFTEEN, MILWAUKEE COUNTY (WI)
15. JURISDICTION SEVENTEEN, NEW ORLEANS (LA)
16. JURISDICTION EIGHTEEN, OKLAHOMA COUNTY (OK)
17. JURISDICTION NINETEEN, PHILADELPHIA (PA)
18. JURISDICTION TWENTY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY (CA)
19. JURISDICTIONS CONCATENATED
0 ...............................................................
0 VAR 0004 ICPSR SEQUENCE NUMBER NO MISSING DATA CODES
REF 0004 LOC 8 WIDTH 5 DK 1 COL 10-14
0
ICPSR SEQUENTIAL CASE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
-------------------------------------------
THE ICPSR HAS ATTACHED A SEQUENTIAL CASE IDENTI-
FICATION NUMBER TO EACH RECORD. THIS NUMBER
UNIQUELY IDENTIFIES EACH RECORD IN THE DATA
COLLECTION.
...............................................................
0 VAR 0005 FELON CASE NUMBER NO MISSING DATA CODES
REF 0005 LOC 13 WIDTH 9 DK 1 COL 15-23
0
FELON'S CASE NUMBER
-------------------
A SEQUENCE OF NUMBERS AND/OR LETTERS THAT REPRESENT A
SPECIFIC OFFENDER. ZEROS HAVE BEEN ADDED TO THE LEFT
HAND SIDE TO MAKE THE COLUMN WIDTH OF THIS VARIABLE
THE SAME FOR ALL 18 JURISDICTIONS.
1 3
-
0 VAR 0006 HIGHEST CHARGE SENTENCED NO MISSING DATA CODES
REF 0006 LOC 22 WIDTH 3 DK 1 COL 24-26
0
HIGHEST CHARGE ON WHICH THE REPSONDENT WAS SENTENCED
----------------------------------------------------
RECLASSIFIED TO MATCH NACJP PENAL CODE
100. HOMICIDE (UNDIFFERENTIATED)
110. MURDER
130. MANSLAUGHTER
140. RECKLESS HOMICIDE (INCLUDING VEHICULAR)
200. RAPE (UNDIFFERNTIATED)
210. FORCIBLE RAPE
220. STATUTORY RAPE
300. ROBBERY (UNDIFFERENTIATED)
310. ARMED ROBBERY
320. UNARMED ROBBERY
400. ASSAULT
430. ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE
500. BURGLARY (UNDIFFERENTIATED)
510. RESIDENTIAL BURGLARY
520. NON-RESIDENTIAL BURGLARY
530. BURGLARY INVOLVING CONTACT WITH VICTIM OR A WEAPON
600. THEFT
700. DRUG TRAFFICKING (UNDIFFERENTIATED)
710. NARCOTICS, COCAINE, SCHEDULE I AND II DRUGS
720. ALL OTHER DRUGS EXCEPT CANNIBUS
730. CANNIBUS
0 ...............................................................
0 VAR 0007 COMPLETION LEVEL/CRIME MD=9
REF 0007 LOC 25 WIDTH 1 DK 1 COL 27
0
COMPLETION LEVEL OF THE CRIME
-----------------------------
1. ATTEMPTED CRIME
2. COMPLETED CRIME
3. CONSPIRACY, ETC.
9. UNABLE TO MAKE DISTINCTION
0
1 4
-
0 VAR 0008 NATURE OF CONVICTION MD=9
REF 0008 LOC 26 WIDTH 1 DK 1 COL 28
0
NATURE OF THE RESPONDENT'S CONVICTION
-------------------------------------
1. TRIAL, THE RESPONDENT IS FOUND GUILTY EITHER THROUGH
A BENCH TRIAL OR A JURY TRIAL
3. PLEA, THE RESPONDENT PLEADS GUILTY
9. NOT ABLE TO ASCERTAIN
0 ...............................................................
0 VAR 0009 SENTENCE IMPOSED NO MISSING DATA CODES
REF 0009 LOC 27 WIDTH 1 DK 1 COL 29
0
SENTENCE IMPOSED UPON THE RESPONDENT
------------------------------------
1. INCARCERATION TO A SECURE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
2. PROBATION AND JAIL
3. PROBATION ONLY
5. ALL OTHER SENTENCES
0 ...............................................................
0 VAR 0010 PROBATION TIME MD=8888 OR GE 9999
REF 0010 LOC 28 WIDTH 4 DK 1 COL 30-33
0
RESPONDENT'S PROBATION SENTENCE LENGTH
--------------------------------------
ALL SENTENCE TERMS HAVE BEEN MULTIPLIED BY 100 SO THAT A
SENTENCE OF ONE YEAR APPEARS AS 100 ON THE RECORD.
TOTAL SENTENCE LENGTH, INCLUDING TIME SPENT IN SPECIAL
PROGRAMS, SUCH AS DRUG REHABILITATION. TIME CODED IN UNIT
OF YEARS, SO THAT A SENTENCE OF 20 MONTHS IS RECORDED AS 175
YEARS.
8888. PROBATION TIME GIVEN, BUT NOT ASCERTAINED
9999. NO PROBATION TIME GIVEN TO RESPONDENT
0
1 5
-
0 VAR 0011 MINIMUM TERM MD=9999
REF 0011 LOC 32 WIDTH 4 DK 1 COL 34-37
0
MINIMUM TERM OF RESPONDENT'S INCARCERATION
------------------------------------------
ALL SENTENCE TERMS HAVE BEEN MULTIPLIED BY 100 SO THAT A
SENTENCE OF ONE YEAR APPEARS AS 100 ON THE RECORD.
JUDGE SPECIFIES A MINIMUM TERM THAT MUST BE SERVED BEFORE
THE CONVICTED RESPONDENT CAN BE ELIGIBLE FOR RELEASE. TERM
SPECIFIED BY JUDGE IS RECORDED IN YEARS.
9999. NO MINIMUM TERM GIVEN TO RESPONDENT
0 ...............................................................
0 VAR 0012 MAXIMUM/FIXED TERM MD=99999
REF 0012 LOC 36 WIDTH 5 DK 1 COL 38-42
0
MAXIMUM OR FIXED TERM OF RESPONDENT'S INCARCERATION
---------------------------------------------------
ALL SENTENCE TERMS HAVE BEEN MULTIPLIED BY 100 SO THAT A
SENTENCE OF ONE YEAR APPEARS AS 100 ON THE RECORD.
MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF TIME THE RESPONDENT MUST SERVE IN EITHER
JAIL OR PRISON. TERM SPECIFIED BY JUDGE IS RECORDED IN
YEARS.
88888. JAIL IMPOSED BUT SENTENCE NOT ASCERTAINED
99600. LIFE (WITH POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE)
99700. NATURAL LIFE (NO POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE)
98000. DEATH
99999. NOT APPLICABLE
0 ...............................................................
0 VAR 0013 WHERE SENTENCED TO MD=9
REF 0013 LOC 41 WIDTH 1 DK 1 COL 43
0
PLACE WHERE RESPONDENT WILL SERVE TERM
--------------------------------------
1 6
- (CONTINUED)
-
1. LOCAL SECURE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY (JAIL, WORKHOUSE,
ETC.)
2. LOCAL, BUT TIME NOT ASCERTAINABLE
3. STATE SECURE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
4. STATE, BUT WITH A LIFE OR DEATH SENTENCE
5. JUDGE SENTENCES RESPONDENT ONLY TO THAT TIME WHICH
S/HE HAS ALREADY SERVED IN PRETRIAL DETENTION.
6. TIME SERVED, BUT TIME NOT ASCERTAINABLE
9. NOT APPLICABLE
0 ...............................................................
0 VAR 0014 CREDIT FOR PRETRIAL MD=9
REF 0014 LOC 42 WIDTH 1 DK 1 COL 44
0
WAS RESPONDENT GIVEN CREDIT FOR PRETRIAL DETENTION
--------------------------------------------------
1. YES, COURT SPECIFIES THAT CREDIT IS AWARDED FOR TIME
SPENT IN PRETRIAL DETENTION. THIS INCLUDES THOSE
INSTANCES WHERE A JUDGE SENTENCES THE RESPONDENT TO
TIME ALREADY SERVED.
3. NO, COURT SPECIFICALLY DENIES THE APPLICATION OF
TIME SERVED IN PRETRIAL DETENTION TO THE SENTENCE
IMPOSED.
9. NOT ASCERTAINABLE, THE COURT IS SILENT ON THE MATTER
OF PRETRIAL DETENTION.
0 ...............................................................
0 VAR 0015 TOTAL NUMBER OF CHARGES MD=99
REF 0015 LOC 43 WIDTH 2 DK 1 COL 45-46
0
TOTAL NUMBER OF CHARGES ON WHICH RESPONDENT IS CONVICTED
--------------------------------------------------------
THE TOTAL NUMBER OF FELONY CHARGES ON WHICH THE RESPONDENT
IS CONVICTED, INCLUDING SENTENCING INHANCEMENTS IF THOSE
INHANCEMENTS APPEAR AS SEPARATE CHARGES.
ACTUAL NUMBER IS CODED.
1 7
- (CONTINUED)
- 99. NUMBER OF CHARGES CANNOT BE DETERMINED
0 ...............................................................
0 VAR 0016 CONSECUTIVE TERMS MD=9
REF 0016 LOC 45 WIDTH 1 DK 1 COL 47
0
WAS RESPONDENT SENTENCED TO CONSECUTIVE TERMS OF
INCARCERATION
------------------------------------------------
1. YES, RESPONDENT IS CONVICTED OF TWO OR MORE
CHARGES/COUNTS AND THE JUDGE ELECTS TO HAVE THESE
SENTENCES SERVED AS CONSECUTIVE TERMS, SO THAT THE
SENTENCE IS ADDITIVE.
3. NO, RESPONDENT IS CONVICTED OF TWO OR MORE
CHARGES/COUNTS AND THE JUDGE ELECTS TO HAVE THESE
SENTENCES SERVED AS CONCURRENT TERMS, SO THAT EACH
SENTENCE IS SERVED AT THE SAME TIME.
9. NOT APPLICABLE, IF RESPONDENT IS CONVICTED ON ONLY
ONE CHARGE.
0 ...............................................................
0 VAR 0017 SENTENCING ENHANCEMENTS MD=9
REF 0017 LOC 46 WIDTH 1 DK 1 COL 48
0
ARE THERE SENTENCING ENHANCEMENTS
---------------------------------
1. YES, CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CRIME CALLS FOR A TOUGHER
SENTENCE EVEN IF THIS AGGRAVATING FACTOR APPEARS AS
AN ADDITIONAL CHARGE.
3. NO, CASES IN WHICH SENTENCING ENHANCEMENTS ARE NOT
RAISED.
9. NOT APPLICABLE
0
1 8
-
0 VAR 0018 CAREER CRIMINAL MD=9
REF 0018 LOC 47 WIDTH 1 DK 1 COL 49
0
WAS THIS CAREER CRIMINAL PROSECUTION
------------------------------------
THIS VARIABLE RELATES TO THOSE PROGRAMS THAT TARGET SPECIAL
TYPES OF CRIMES OR OFFENDERS FOR SPECIAL PROSECUTORIAL
ATTENTION. THIS VARIABLE, IS NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH
LEGISLATION DEALING WITH HABITUAL OFFENDERS AND ENHANCED
SENTENCING.
1. YES, RESPONDENT WAS TARGETED FOR SPECIAL
PROSECUTORIAL ATTENTION UNDER A CAREER CRIMINAL
PROGRAM.
3. NO, RESPONDENT DID NOT RECEIVE ANY SPECIAL
PROSECUTORIAL ATTENTION UNDER A CAREER CRIMINAL
PROGRAM.
9. NOT ASCERTAINABLE
0 ...............................................................
0 VAR 0019 GUN USED MD=9
REF 0019 LOC 48 WIDTH 1 DK 1 COL 50
0
WAS A GUN USED IN THE CRIME
---------------------------
THIS VARIABLE RELATES TO THE PRESENCE OR USE OF A GUN BY THE
RESPONDENT WHEN S/HE COMMITTED THE CRIME REGARDLESS OF
WHETHER OR NOT SUCH GUN USAGE OR PRESENCE SHOWS UP IN A
SEPARATE CHARGE.
1. YES, GUN USED OR PRESENT
3. NO, GUN NOT USED OR NOT PRESENT
9. NOT ASCERTAINABLE, INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO
DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT A GUN WAS USED OR PRESENT
DURING THE CRIME.
0
1 9
-
0 VAR 0020 HIGHEST CHARGE CONVITED MD=9
REF 0020 LOC 49 WIDTH 1 DK 1 COL 51
0
WAS RESPONDENT'S SENTENCE CHARGE LOWER THAN INDICTMENT
CHARGE
------------------------------------------------------
THIS VARIABLE RELATES TO THE CHARGE MADE AGAINST THE
RESPONDENT WHEN S/HE WAS FIRST BROUGH BEFORE THE FELONY
COURT. IT IS NOT RELATED TO ARREST CHARGES. IF CONVICTION IS
ON A LOWER CHARGE THAN ORIGINAL FELONY COURT CHARGE, THEN
THERE IS A CHARGE REDUCTION.
1. YES, CHARGE REDUCTION
3. NO, NO CHARGE REDUCTION
9. NOT ASCERTAINABLE FROM INFORMATION ON THE RECORD
0 ...............................................................
0 VAR 0021 AGE/PERSON SENTENCED MD=99
REF 0021 LOC 50 WIDTH 2 DK 1 COL 52-53
0
AGE OF THE RESPONDENT
---------------------
AGE OF THE RESPONDENT IN WHOLE YEARS AT THE TIME OF
SENTENCING.
ACTUAL AGE IS CODED.
00.
.
.
97.
98. 98 YEARS OR OLDER
99. NOT ASCERTAINED
0
1 10
-
0 VAR 0022 WEIGHT FACTOR NO MISSING DATA CODES
REF 0022 LOC 52 WIDTH 3 DK 1 COL 54-56
0
WEIGHT FACTOR
-------------
THIS VARIABLE IS A MULTIPLIER THAT FACTORS THE NUMBER OF
CASES UP TO THE TOTAL NUMBER OF CASES IN THE UNIVERSE. IN
THOSE INSTANCES WHERE TOTAL COUNTS ARE BEING PROVIDED 0100
IS RECORDED.
...............................................................
0 VAR 0023 JURISDICTION ID NO MISSING DATA CODES
REF 0023 LOC 55 WIDTH 2 DK 1 COL 57-58
0
JURISDICTION IDENTIFICATION CODE
--------------------------------
01. BALTIMORE CITY (MD)
02. BALTIMORE COUNTY (MD)
04. DADE COUNTY (FL)
05. DAVIDSON COUNTY (TN)
06. DENVER (CO)
07. HENNEPIN COUNTY (MN)
08. JEFFERSON COUNTY (KY)
09. JEFFERSON PARISH (LA)
10. KANE COUNTY (IL)
11. LANCASTER COUNTY (NE)
12. LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CENTRAL DISTRICT (CA)
13. LUCAS COUNTY (OH)
14. MARICOPA COUNTY (AZ)
15. MILWAUKEE COUNTY (WI)
17. NEW ORLEANS (LA)
18. OKLAHOMA COUNTY (OK)
19. PHILADELPHIA (PA)
20. RIVERSIDE COUNTY (CA)
0 ...............................................................
0 VAR 0024 SIMPLIFIED CRIME CODE NO MISSING DATA CODES
REF 0024 LOC 57 WIDTH 1 DK 1 COL 59
0
SIMPLIFIED CRIME CODE
---------------------
1 11
- (CONTINUED)
- 1. HOMICIDE
2. RAPE
3. ROBBERY
4. ASSAULT
5. BURGLARY
6. THEFT
7. DRUG TRAFFICKING
1 12
- (CONTINUED)
-
APPENDIX A
METHODOLOGICAL NOTES
A.1 FRAME OF REFERENCE
------------------
WITH THE EXCEPTION OF BALTIMORE COUNTY, DADE COUNTY, AND
NEW ORLEANS, THE DATA IN THIS REPORT REPRESENT ALL OF THOSE
SENTENCES METED OUT FOR THE CRIMES UNDER STUDY DURING
CALENDAR YEAR 1983.
BALTIMORE COUNTY PROVIDED SENTENCING DATA FOR THE PERIOD
4/1/83 THROUGH 3/31/84. THE REASON FOR THIS FRAME WAS THAT
BALTIMORE COUNTY WAS USING ITS PROSECUTOR MANAGEMENT
INFORMATION SYSTEM TO IDENTIFY CASES FALLING INTO THE STUDY
AND THAT THE SYSTEM WAS NOT FULLY OPERATIONAL TO PROVIDE
SUCH INFORMATION BEFORE APRIL 1, 1983. SO TO STAY WITH A
COMMON RECORD SOURCE FOR IDENTIFYING THE ELIGIBLE CASES, THE
TIME FRAME WAS ALTERED.
ON OCTOBER 1, 1983, THE STATE OF FLORIDA IMPLEMENTED NEW
SENTENCING PROCEDURES. IN THE INTEREST OF OBTAINING ONE
FULL YEAR'S WORTH OF DATA UNDER A SINGLE SENTENCING
APPROACH, THE DECISION WAS MADE TO COLLECT THE DADE COUNTY
INFORMATION ON SENTENCES FROM OCTOBER 1, 1982 THROUGH
SEPTEMBER 30, 1983.
THE RECORD SYSTEMS IN NEW ORLEANS FORCED A CHANGE IN THE
REFERENCE PERIOD THERE. THE CHANGE ENTAILED GOING FROM
SENTENCES HANDED DOWN IN 1983 TO CASES INITIATED IN 1983.
THE REASON FOR THIS CHANGE IN REFERENCE PERIOD WAS THAT NO
CENTRAL RECORD SYSTEM EXISTED IN WHICH TO EXAMINE CASES BY
THEIR DATE OF DISPOSITION. COURT RECORDS ARE ORGANIZED BY
THE DATE ON WHICH CASES ARE INITIATED. BECAUSE OF THE LARGE
NUMBER OF RAW RECORDS THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE EXAMINED (THERE
ARE TEN COURTS WITH EACH COURT HAVING 12-14 VOLUMES OF
250-300 CASES EACH) AND BECAUSE CASES TEND TO BE DISPOSED OF
WITHIN 60-90 DAYS, THE DECISION WAS MADE TO GO WITH CASES
INITIATED IN 1983 KNOWING THAT NEARLY ALL WOULD HAVE BEEN
DISPOSED OF BY THE TIME THE DATA WERE CODED (WHICH WAS IN
JUNE, 1984).
1 13
- (CONTINUED)
- A.2 GEOGRAPHICAL COVERAGE
---------------------
IN ALL OF THE JURISDICTIONS PARTICIPATING IN THE STUDY,
THE SENTENCING DATA COME FROM THE ENTIRE COUNTY EXCEPT IN
LOS ANGELES. IN LOS ANGELES THERE ARE MULTIPLE
PROSECUTORIAL OFFICES AND COURTS SCATTERED THROUGHOUT THE
COUNTY. BECAUSE THE DATA HAD TO BE VERIFIED AGAINST THE
ORIGINAL COURT RECORD AS WELL AS SUPPLEMENTED FROM THE
ORIGINAL COURT RECORD, THE DECISION WAS MADE TO SIMPLIFY
THIS TASK BY LIMITING THE SCOPE OF THE STUDY IN LOS ANGELES
TO THE CENTRAL DISTRICT COURT WHICH BASICALLY SERVES THE
CITY OF LOS ANGELES. SO THE DATA FROM LOS ANGELES IS MORE
SIMILAR TO THE DATA COMING FROM JURISDICTIONS WHEN THERE IS
A CONSOLIDATED CITY/COUNTY GOVERNMENT (E.G. DENVER,
PHILADELPHIA, ETC.) THAN THOSE JURISDICTIONS WHERE A
SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE COUNTY POPULATION LIVES OUTSIDE
OF THE CORE CENTRAL CITY (E.G. DADE COUNTY, HENNEPIN COUNTY,
MARICOPA COUNTY, ETC.).
A.3 CRIME DEFINITIONS
-----------------
THE PENAL CODES FROM EACH OF THE PARTICIPATING
JURISDICTIONS PROVIDED THE BASIS FOR DEFINING THE SEVEN
CRIMES ANALYZED IN THIS STUDY; I.E., HOMICIDE, RAPE,
ROBBERY, AGGRAVATED ASSAULT, BURGLARY, LARCENY, AND DRUG
TRAFFICKING. STAFF SPECIFIED WHICH PENAL CODE CITATIONS
APPLIED TO THESE VARIOUS CRIME TYPES AND IN SOME INSTANCES
SPECIFIED WHAT CITATIONS DID NOT. THESE EXCLUSIONS TOOK
PLACE WHERE THE PARTICIPATING JURISDICTION'S PENAL CODE
COULD LEAD TO POTENTIAL CONFUSION WITH THE GENERAL
PARAMETERS THAT WERE LAID DOWN FOR THE STUDY. FOR EXAMPLE,
A NUMBER OF STATES HAVE STATUTES DEALING WITH CRIMINAL
TRESPASS, A CRIME THAT COULD EASILY BE CONFUSED WITH
BURGLARY. STAFF MADE EXPLICIT THAT CRIMINAL TRESPASS SHOULD
BE EXCLUDED FROM THE DATA COLLECTION EFFORT.
STAFF COMPILED A LISTING OF ALL STATUTES FALLING INTO
THE STUDY IN A SEPARATE PUBLICATION TITLED, "PENAL CODE
CITATIONS: GUIDELINES FOR BJS SENTENCING PROJECT
PARTICIPANTS." A REVIEW OF THIS DOCUMENT WOULD SHOW THAT
THERE ARE DIFFERENCES AS TO HOW THE CRIMES ARE DEFINED FROM
JURISDICTION TO JURISDICTION. SUCH DIFFERENCES ARE TO BE
EXPECTED WITH EACH STATE LEGISLATING ITS OWN CODE. IN THE
CONTEXT OF THE SEVEN CRIMES INVOLVED IN THIS STUDY, THE
DIFFERENCES DO NOT SERIOUSLY IMPAIR OUR ABILITY TO OBTAIN
COMPARABLE DEFINITIONS.
1 14
- (CONTINUED)
-
THE GENERAL PARAMETERS FOR THE SELECTED CRIME CATEGORIES
AND THE MAJOR DIFFERENCES OBSERVED AMONG THE JURISDICTIONS
ARE OUTLINED BELOW.
HOMICIDE. THIS CRIME WAS DEFINED AS WRONGFUL DEATH
WITH OR WITHOUT INTENT AND INCLUDED SUCH LEGAL TERMS AS
MURDER, MANSLAUGHTER, RECKLESS HOMICIDE, AND VEHICULAR
HOMICIDE. THE TYPES OF CRIMES EXCLUDED FROM THIS CRIME
CATEGORY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS STUDY INVOLVED SUCH
ACTIVITIES AS AIDING IN A SUICIDE AND CAUSING THE DEATH
OF AN UNBORN CHILD. BECAUSE THE STUDY WAS LOOKING AT
CASES DISPOSED OF AS FELONIES, THERE WERE SEVERAL
INSTANCES WHERE CERTAIN TYPES OF HOMICIDES DID NOT
QUALIFY FOR INCLUSION IN THE STUDY BECAUSE THEY WERE
DEFINED AS MISDEMEANORS IN THE PENAL CODES, FOR EXAMPLE,
VEHICULAR HOMICIDE IS A FELONY IN MARYLAND. BECAUSE
OF ITS MISDEMEANOR STATUS, THIS CRIME FELL OUT OF THE
SCOPE OF THE STUDY. YET VEHICULAR HOMICIDE IS A FELONY
IN MOST OF THE OTHER PARTICIPATING JURISDICTIONS AND
SO WAS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE STUDY FOR THEM. FINALLY,
WHENEVER A HOMICIDE WAS ATTEMPTED, FOR PURPOSES OF
THIS STUDY IT FELL UNDER THE CRIME CATEGORY OF
AGGRAVATED ASSAULT.
RAPE. THIS CRIME WAS DEFINED AS THE ILLEGAL SEXUAL
PENETRATION OF A PERSON, INCLUDING THE USE OF FOREIGN
OBJECTS. CONSEQUENTLY, THIS DEFINITION EMBRACES
STATUTORY RAPE (WHERE FORCE MAY BE ABSENT BUT THE
STATUS OF THE VICTIM IS VIEWED AS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE
THAT THE VICTIM WAS NOT CAPABLE OF RESISTANCE, E.G.
AGE, MENTAL COMPETENCY) AS WELL AS FORCIBLE RAPE.
THIS CRIME CATEGORY INCLUDES HOMOSEXUAL RAPE AS WELL
AS HETEROSEXUAL RAPE. STATUTORY PROVISIONS THAT THE
STUDY EXCLUDED INVOLVED CRIMES OF SEXUAL CONTACT
(INCLUDING THOSE WITH ELEMENTS OF FORCE AND THOSE
COMMITTED AGAINST CHILDREN) WHERE NO SEXUAL
PENETRATION WAS ACHIEVED. FOR PURPOSES OF THIS
STUDY, PERSONS FOUND GUILTY OF ATTEMPTED RAPE WOULD
REMAIN IN THE RAPE CATEGORY.
ROBBERY. THIS CRIME WAS DEFINED AS THE USE OF
FORCE TO DEPRIVE ANOTHER OF HIS/HER PROPERTY. WHILE
THE DEFINITION FOR ROBBERY IS VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD,
THERE ARE ITEMS THAT NEED TO BE HIGHLIGHTED HERE. A
NUMBER OF PENAL CODES HAVE PROVISIONS UNDER BURGLARY
THAT INVOLVE A BASIC ELEMENT FOR ROBBERY; I.E., A
CONFRONTATION BETWEEN THE OFFENDER AND THE VICTIM.
WHERE STATE PENAL CODES SPECIFICALLY DETAIL SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES, THE STUDY CLASSIFIED THOSE BURGLARIES
1 15
- (CONTINUED)
- AS BURGLARIES. ALSO, ALMOST EVERY PENAL CODE
DIFFERENTIATES BETWEEN ARMED ROBBERY AND UNARMED
ROBBERY. THE READER SHOULD NOTE THAT ARMED ROBBERY
COVERS A WIDE SPECTRUM OF WEAPONS THAT GOES BEYOND
THE IMAGE OF A FELON POINTING A GUN AT THE VICTIM.
WEAPON USAGE CAN EMBRACE KNIVES, BATS, PLAY GUNS,
OR EVEN SOMEONE POINTING A FINGER THROUGH HIS/HER
POCKET TO GIVE THE APPEARANCE OF A WEAPON.
AGGRAVATED ASSAULT. THIS CRIME WAS DEFINED AS THE
INFLICTION OF INJURY OR THE THREAT TO INFLICT INJURY
ON ANOTHER. AS NOTED ABOVE, ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE IS
INCLUDED UNDER THIS CRIME CATEGORY. THE PENAL CODES
TEND TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN FELONY AND MISDEMEANOR
ASSAULT BASED ON THE EXTENT OF INJURY AND THE NATURE
OF THE THREAT. FELONY ASSAULT IS USUALLY DEFINED
AS AGGRAVATED ASSAULT AND INVOLVES SERIOUS PHYSICAL
INJURY AND/OR WEAPON USAGE. A NUMBER OF STATUTES
ELEVATE SIMPLE (MISDEMEANOR) ASSAULTS AGAINST POLICE
TO FELONY ASSAULTS AND THESE ARE INCLUDED IN THE
STUDY. ON THE OTHER HAND, SOME STATES TREAT THE
THREAT TO USE A WEAPON AS A MISDEMEANOR SO THOSE
CRIMES ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE STUDY.
BURGLARY. THIS CRIME WAS DEFINED AS THE UNLAWFUL
ENTERING OF A STRUCTURE. SOME CRIMES DEFINED IN THE
PENAL CODE AS BURGLARIES DISCUSS CONTACT BETWEEN THE
BURGLAR AND THE VICTIM OR THE PRESCENCE OF A WEAPON.
WHILE THESE TYPES OF BURGLARY APPROXIMATE THE DEFINITION
OF ROBBERY, THERE IS NO EASY WAY TO IDENTIFY THOSE
CASES WHERE THERE WAS A CONFRONTATION WITH THE VICTIM.
SO THESE CASES WERE LEFT AS A SPECIAL CATEGORY WITHIN
BURGLARY. PENAL CODE PROVISIONS EXCLUDED FROM THIS
CRIME CATEGORY IN THE STUDY DEALT WITH THE POSSESSION
OF BURGLAR TOOLS AND CRIMINAL TRESPASS. THE STUDY ALSO
SOUGHT TO EXCLUDE THOSE INSTANCES WHERE THE PENAL CODES
DEFINED BREAK-INS ON SUCH ITEMS AS COIN BOXES, CARS,
BOATS, ETC., AS BURGLARIES. IN SOME INSTANCES THIS
WAS IMPOSSIBLE; BUT IN DISCUSSING THESE SITUATIONS
WITH STAFF FROM THE PROSECUTOR'S OFFICES, SUCH CRIMES
(BREAKING INTO A CAR) WERE SELDOM PURSUED UNDER THE
BURGLARY STATUTE.
THEFT. THIS CRIME IS PERHAPS THE MOST AMBIGUOUS
OF THE CRIME CATEGORIES INCLUDED IN THE STUDY. THE
STUDY SOUGHT TO LIMIT THE DEFINITION TO THE UNLAWFUL
TAKING OF PROPERTY AND TO EXCLUDE SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES
AS EXTORTION, FRAUD, OR DECEPTION. SOME CODES HAVE
SEPARATE CITATIONS FOR SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES WHILE MANY
OF THE CODES STRICTLY FOCUS ON THE VALUE OF THE
1 16
- (CONTINUED)
- PROPERTY TAKEN, WITHOUT REGARD TO THE METHOD USED BY
THE OFFENDER. IN ADDITION, THE VALUE THRESHOLD FOR
FELONY THEFT VARIES FROM $20 IN OKLAHOMA TO $1,000 IN
PENNSYLVANIA. IT SHOULD ALSO BE NOTED THAT THEFT
HERE INCLUDES MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT. FINALLY, A NUMBER
OF CODES DEFINE CERTAIN TYPES OF THEFT TO BE FELONY
WITHOUT REGARD TO THE VALUE TAKEN; I.E., THEFT FROM
THE PERSON (POCKET PICKING).
DRUG TRAFFICKING. THIS CRIME WAS DEFINED TO
INCLUDE THE TRANSPORTATION, MANUFACTURE (INCLUDING
GROWING), DISTRIBUTION, AND SELLING OF CONTROLLED
SUBSTANCES AS WELL AS THOSE LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
THAT SPECIFIED POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO TRANSPORT,
MANUFACTURE, DISTRIBUTE, OR SELL. STRAIGHT POSSESSION,
HOWEVER, WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THIS CRIME CATEGORY.
IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT CODES VARY ON THE THRESHOLD
WEIGHT IN DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN STRAIGHT POSSESSION
AND POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO SELL.
A.4 WEIGHTS
-------
WHETHER SAMPLING WAS USED AND ITS EXTENT VARIED BY
JURISDICTION AND CRIME CATEGORY. IN MOST CASES THERE
WAS NO SAMPLING; I.E., ALL OF THE CASES MEETING THE
SELECTION CRITERIA FOR THE STUDY WERE USED. IN THE
GRID BELOW, THE NUMBER ONE (1) REPRESENTS SUCH
INSTANCES. WHEN CASES WERE SAMPLED THE SAMPLED CASES
WERE WEIGHTED BY THE INVERSE OF THEIR SAMPLING RATE.
FOR EXAMPLE, IN BALTIMORE CITY EVERY FOURTH (1/4)
ROBBERY MEETING THE SELECTION CRITERIA FOR THE STUDY
WAS SELECTED AND THOSE CASES THEN RECEIVED A WEIGHT
OF FOUR (4) BECAUSE THEY EACH REPRESENTED FOUR CASES.
WHEN CASES WERE SAMPLED, THEY WERE SORTED BY TYPE OF
SENTENCE IMPOSED (JAIL, PRISON, PROBATION) AND BY THE
TERM IMPOSED SO AS TO ASSURE REPRESENTATIVENESS ON
THESE TWO CRITICAL CONSIDERATIONS.
1 17
- (CONTINUED)
-
WEIGHTING GRID
HOMI- AGG. BURG- LAR- DRUG
CIDE RAPE ROBBERY ASSAULT LARY CENY TRAFFICK.
---------------------------------------------
BALTIMORE CITY 1 1 4 1 3 NA NA
BALTIMORE CO. 1 1 1 1 1 2 1
DADE COUNTY 1 1 3 1 7 6 2
DAVIDSON CO. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DENVER 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
HENNEPIN CO. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
JEFFERSON CO. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
JEFFERSON PAR. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
KANE COUNTY 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
LANCASTER CO. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
LOS ANGELES 1 1 5 4 5 4 10
LUCAS COUNTY 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
MARICOPA CO. 1 1 1 3 5 5 1
MILWAUKEE CO. 1 1 1 1 3 1 1
NEW ORLEANS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
OKLAHOMA CO. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
PHILADELPHIA 1 1 10 5 10 4 1.33
RIVERSIDE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 TERMINATION OF CODEBOOK LIST.